Section 10 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) was shown to the respondents in the custody of the premises and their possession was declared unauthorized without any inquiry and information and Ahata was allotted to the applicant board. The Revenue maintained the allotment order petitioner but the High Court ruled that the order of the Board of Revenue was to be done without legitimate authority on the ground that the record was being misrepresented and the television record was ignored. Which shows that the defendant had been in possession of the country for a long time. There is no evidence of unauthorization at any stage, nor is it proved so no record is available on the record to show that the respondent was in more than one possession with any kind of cautionary order of the High Court. If the weakness was not encountered, the appeal to appeal was denied if the applicant felt that the defendant had either forfeited his right to remain in Ihata or owned more than one Ihaa, H's dismissal request for leave
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
